Cohousing-L Mailing List: Revised commentary - long

[Cinnie Blair (cpie55]

Hi I was advised that the first edition of this commentary was confrontational. 
I instantly agreed and redrafted another version. (Then I had to shorten it in 
order to submit it to the newspaper.) I am grateful for the feedback and I am 
very happy to have the opportunity to strengthen my "bridge-building " skills.

Are there any stories or studies you would like to share that address these 4 
concerns:  1) traffic, 2) density, 3) visual impact, and 4) property values?

Warmly, Cinnie

************************************************************************************************

Commentary on the proposed Sycamore Village Cohousing and Sac Bee article 

      I attended the CPAC hearing in Orangevale on Tuesday, January 2, which 
discussed
the proposed Sycamore Village cohousing project. After 15 years residing in Fair
Oaks, I now live in Nevada County. I am an enthusiastic supporter of cohousing (
www.cohousing.org ) and hope to live in a cohousing community some day. These 
are
my comments on the meeting and the Sacramento Bee article of  January 8.

     The neighbors have some major concerns: 1) traffic, 2) density, 3) visual 
impact,
and 4) property values. All equate to quality of life. I believe that cohousing 
residents share the same concerns for health and safety, for beauty, for a 
connection
with nature, for friendship and cooperation with their neighbors, and for 
financial
security. What may differ is the way in which we choose to satisfy these needs. 
Here is why I would choose cohousing to solve these issues. 

     Traffic: This area already has a tremendous traffic problem. Residents are 
justifiably alarmed. Most  involves transporting children to and from school. At
Nevada City cohousing, a 15 passenger van  ferries kids to a school across town.
One mother at the same location said she used one tank of gas all last summer. A
Colorado study found cohousing reduced traffic by 25%. Cohousing revolves around
principles of cooperation, so carpooling is easier. Cooperation doesn’t end at 
the
property line; there are  opportunities for cohousing residents to cooperate 
with
surrounding neighbors on many things.

      The area in question falls within the Greenback Lane transportation 
corridor.
It is identified by county planners as an area in which they wish to increase 
density
in order to promote public transit and reduce urban sprawl. Many cohousers want 
to use mass transit.  Increased ridership will justify increasing routes and 
frequency.
For more information, visit http://corridors.saccounty.net/corridorPlans.asp. 

There is other research into the latest solutions to the traffic problems in 
this
country. Google “smart growth” and “new urbanism". These challenge our 
assumptions
about what creates more traffic. In fact, I wish cohousing had arrived in our 
communities
years ago. We could have clustered homes, reduced traffic, and preserved open 
space,
all at the same time. (But lest one  thinks it’s too late, check out N Street 
Cohousing
in Davis where neighbors tore down fences to create a big common space.)

      Density: The 3.5 acre lot in question is surrounded by ¼ acre parcels and 
a huge concrete  fitness center.  When I lived in Fair Oaks  I was searching for
a pasture to keep a milk cow.  I grieved because open space was being gobbled up
by development everywhere I turned.  I empathize with the neighbors' outrage
over the loss of open space. Development is a foregone conclusion; how it is 
developed
is not.

      Visual impact: The immediate neighbors don’t want to see two-story 
buildings
across their fence; they don’t want their neighbors to look in on their back 
yard
activities. The future residents of Sycamore Village have listened to these 
concerns
and altered their original layout so that the two-story buildings are set back 
eighty
feet amongst preserved oak and sycamore trees, with covered parking along the 
fence
as a buffer. Contrast this to the current mode of development: two-story stucco 
houses built as big as can be with a 15 foot strip of set-back for a yard.
 
      Property values: Cohousing has been in this country for 40 years with 
proven
success: high resale values and waiting lists for new homes. Cohousers enjoy 
private
homes and private finances, yet they have generous shared facilities. Cohousing 
consistently increases the value of surrounding homes. 

      Good neighbors: Cohousing residents are energetic, creative people. They 
are
problem solvers. Many involve themselves with the surrounding community. An 
example
was given of Muir Commons in Davis where the Girl Scouts and Neighborhood Watch 
meet in the Common House. The area stands to gain a free community development 
department
and meeting place!

     So let's continue the conversation. The neighbors’ concerns will be 
addressed
at future meetings, both publicly through the planning process and privately 
with
the cohousers. There are not just two sides to an issue - there is much to be 
learned
by all. No matter what the outcome, ultimately, everyone’s lives are enriched by
mutual understanding.


Cinnie Blair and her husband moved with their 2 young children from Fair Oaks to
farm and cohouse in the Grass Valley area. www.nevadcountyruralcohousing.org